It’s no secret that the House & Senate majority are frustrated that Governor Hobbs has been vetoing some of their priority bills. As an end-around, they’re increasingly turning to things called ‘SCR’s and HCR’s’ – Resolutions that, if passed via each chamber, place the bill directly on the ballot during the next general election (the state constitution doesn’t allow the Governor to veto those Resolutions).
Last legislative session saw 4 potential laws that will be on the 2024 ballot including:
- Arizona Emergency Declarations Amendment – Terminates governor declared states of emergency after 30 days unless legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the governor. It excludes states of emergency from floods or fire – which basically leaves public health related emergencies;
- Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment – Requires signatures for voter initiatives come from every legislative district, requiring 10% in each LD for voter initiatives and 15% for constitutional amendments;
- Arizona Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Amendment – a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the family of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty; and
- Require Partisan Primaries Amendment – Require partisan primary elections for partisan offices.
This year there are more than 60 Resolutions circulating at the legislature. There’s no way all of them will make it to the November ballot – but there are a few that probably will.
I’ll cover one of them that could have public health impacts here.
It’s HCR2060. The title says ‘lawful presence; e-verify program; penalties’. HCR passed on a party-line vote in the House and is now with the Senate. The flagship part of HCR 2060 requires employers in the state to ensure that new hires are legally eligible to work. It also would deny public welfare benefits to undocumented persons.
E-Verify is a tool developed by the federal government that can electronically confirm whether applicants for jobs are legally eligible to work in the U.S. There’s no national requirement for employers to use the system except that any entities who contract with the feds must use E-verify for all their staff.
It’s already mandatory for all employers in Arizona to use E-verify. So, there’s not a whole lot that’s new about employment verification in HCR2060.
The public health issue with HCR2060 is that state, county, and city agencies who provide anything that appears to be a ‘public welfare benefits’ must also use E-Verify to determine whether the person is actually eligible for the service or benefit – even though the E-verify system is set up to just check employment eligibility.
The Resolution defines a ‘Public Welfare Program’ as:
“… any program administered by a city or town that provides an individual with financial aid in the amount of at least $500 per year including benefits… including benefits that relate to health, disability, public or assisted housing, food assistance or unemployment.”
The federal government already has criteria for deciding eligibility for federal benefits like Medicaid (AHCCCS) and food stamps (SNAP) (it’s called Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements).
HCR2060 would require AHCCCS & ADES (who administers SNAP) to use both SAVE (as they do now) AND E-Verify… and the two systems will often (or at least sometimes) give different answers.
Some legal immigrants are eligible for federal benefit programs but ineligible to work (the Women Infant and Children – or WIC programs comes to mind). Many current WIC recipients qualify under SAVE but not under E-verify.
Arizona WIC insiders think about half of the 135,000 WIC participants would lose their services if voters ultimately approve HCR2060.
It’s also possible – even likely – that many other programs at the city or county level would get caught up in this new bureaucracy, requiring additional expensive administrative checking for a host of benefits.
Voters might vote down HCR2060 at the polls in November – but they might not – resulting in a cascade of bureaucratic red tape, confusing contradictions regarding benefit eligibility & the loss of critical services – especially WIC.
Studies suggest that every $1 spent on WIC results in up to a $3.13 reduction in spending for Medicaid programs. This is particularly pertinent given the large overlap between WIC and Medicaid recipients. Reductions in poor health outcomes because of nutrition aid programs such as WIC are also expected to save significant amounts in private healthcare as well.
